ACPNJ 2024 Abstract Judging BallotPlease enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Judge's Name *FirstLastEmail *Abstract Number *Abstract Type *Clinical VignetteResearchQuality ImprovementClinical VignettePlease score each category below, with a score of 10 being the highest and 1 being the lowest.Originality * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 Significance * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 Presentation * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 Scientific Merit * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 ResearchParticipants should assign a score from 1 to 10 for each category based on the provided explanations, focusing on the overall quality and impact of their abstract in the research competition.Clarity of Abstract * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 This category assesses the clarity and coherence of the abstract, including the articulation of the problem, objectives, methods, and anticipated results. A high score reflects a well-organized and easy-to-understand abstract.Originality * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 This category evaluates the level of originality in the research project. It considers the uniqueness of the research question and the innovative aspects of the study.Methodological Rigor * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 A score of 1 suggests a lack of rigor in the proposed methodology, whereas a score of 10 indicates a well-considered and robust research plan with appropriate study design and analytical methods.Interpretation of Results * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 This category examines the thoroughness and clarity in interpreting research results. It assesses how well the findings are presented and their implications for the research question.Relevance to the Practice of Medicine * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 This category evaluates how well the research project aligns with the practice of medicine. It considers the practical applications of the project in real-world medical settings and its potential contributions to improved patient care practices.Quality ImprovementParticipants should assign a score from 1 to 10 for each category based on the provided explanations, focusing on the overall quality and impact of their abstract in the QIPS competition.Clarity of Abstract * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 A score of 1 indicates poor clarity and organization, with difficulty understanding the abstract. A score of 10 reflects an excellent presentation, demonstrating clear articulation of the problem, objectives, methods, and anticipated results.Innovation and Impact * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 A score of 1 suggests little to no innovation or impact, while a score of 10 signifies a highly innovative project with the potential for significant positive outcomes for patients and healthcare systems.Feasibility, Practicality, and Adaptability * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 This category assesses the feasibility and practicality of the proposed QIPS project, considering the likelihood of successful implementation based on available resources, time constraints, and the practicality of the proposed interventions. Additionally, it evaluates the adaptability of the project to changes and unforeseen circumstances.Methodological Rigor * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 A score of 1 suggests a lack of rigor in the proposed methodology, whereas a score of 10 indicates a well-considered and robust research plan with appropriate study design and analytical methods.Relevance to the Practice of Medicine * 10987654321 10Originality 109Originality 98Originality 87Originality 76Originality 65Originality 54Originality 43Originality 32Originality 21Originality 1 A score of 1 reflects little relevance to the practice of medicine, while a score of 10 indicates strong alignment with real-world medical settings and potential contributions to improved patient care practices.Comments?Would you like to judge another entry? *YesNoWebsiteSubmit